Marriage is a state's rights issue - always was until the Federal Government
stepped in with DOMA.It is only right that this issue is turned back
over to the states where it rightfully belongs.
People who talk about states rights actually love it when the federal government
enforces laws that they agree with.
Another step on the right direction! I find President Obama slow to act
and of course politically motivated. But, whatever the reason(s), I celebrate
the fact that all citizens eventually will be able to enjoy all the privileges,
rights and responsibilties of our democracy.Tradition should not be used
as an excuse for discrimination and inequality.Today is a good day in the
U.S.A. and the future looks even brighter.
In California, the people voted for Prop 8, marriage defined as a man and a
woman. The governor, Schwarzenegger, and governor elect, Jerry Brown, who was
serving as attorney general, refused to support the will of the people in this
legitimate effort. All political..nor ethical or moral.
@ Californian: Attorney General Brown refused to defend a law and yet the
majority of Californians elected him Governor....Hmmm.... Why do you
think that is?Do you think that maybe some of those who voted for
Prop 8 changed their minds and that is why he was elected? Maybe they found out
that the ads used to support Prop 8 were a bunch of lies? Or maybe once 8000 of
their fellow citizens got married and the world didn't end they decided it
really wasn't that big of a deal after all....Whatever their
reasoning, the majority of Californians obviously are not too upset with Jerry
This is not unprecedented. In fact a similar thing happens every day in cities
and counties and in federal offices where government attorneys general and local
district attorneys refuse to prosecute old, unconstitutional, and out of date
laws. At a time when our governments are bloated and debt ridden, defending
this law is a massive waste of money. Now if only this
administration will stop defending ObamaCare in court!
The Deseret News is on the wrong side of this issue.
[ We deplore the penchant of this administration to override tradition and
process in order to enact untested social policy. ]The Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health decision was decided on November 18, 2003. That was 7
1/4 years ago. It's tested social policy already. There are ample precedents
in other countries, like Canada, for example, which legalized same gender
marriage on July 20, 2005. What do you need to know? How would you
recommend we test social polices?
The Deseret news is right. What I found somewhat alarming is that the AG
confused justifiable moral objections with 'animus'. In my experience 98% of
the time what is identified as 'homophobia' (bigotry towards gays) is simply
someone's moral or cultural objections. It is the height of cultural chauvinism
to conclude that someones moral or cultural beliefs are an indication of bigotry
or a borderline pschological problem.Tekakaromatagi
McBilly - good point.Perhaps I am incorrect but the article, as I
understand the first three paragraphs is NOT about same sex marriage but about
the fed defending the law of land. I am not saying those laws are right, good,
etc. But I do NOT see this article as a defense of marriage.
It is what you would expect from Obama. He determined it was unconstitutional, I
thought the Supreme Court was to rule on the constitutionality of laws. But not
now that we have Obama. The Obama administration should not be deciding which
laws they will enforce, but they have done that before.
Re: MenaceToSocietyAll men are created equal? Is that why the
Founding Fathers also abolished slavery? I know some were opposed to slavery but
slavery persisted for almost another 100 years. So what does the Declaration of
Independence state?"All men are created equal" - Notice
the word "created", implying by God.How are they equal? They are
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". So they are endowed by God
with certain rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Again, even with this background, slavery was still allowed. There were a lot
of reasons for that but the term liberty meant different things to different
groups of people at that time; none of the meanings really meant how we
typically use liberty today (read David Hackett Fischer's Washington's Crossing
for a good discussion of this). So, when it was written, "all men are
created equal", it didn't mean at that time quite what we take it to mean
I happen to disagree with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Still this
editorial makes a reasonable case that the Justice Department should provide the
resources to make a defense of it. I think the proper course to take is to
repeal this legislation.
Typical Obama - totally disregarding his oath of office - againI
continue to expect the unexpected (and illegal) with this Chavez-like
I think the article and the comment by Henry Drummond are right on. Whether or
not the executive agrees with enacted laws, they should still defend them in
court. It shouldn't be their prerogative to pick and choose what to enforce.
Whenever we pass a law we should consider the law of unintended consequences.
Often the long term consequences of a new law are far worse than the problems
that the new law was intended rectify. Many people can see no problem with
letting gays get married--after all, they love each other. But, if gays can get
married, then what is going to prevent a brother and sister from getting
married? Or two brothers? Or two sisters? Or a father and a daughter? Or a
father and a son? Or two men and three women (polyamory)? And on and on and
on. As long as people love each other, then let's let them legalize the
relationship. But, once we open the Pandora's box of gay marriage, are we ready
and prepared for the social chaos that will be the inevitable consequence? Or
are the gays so selfish that they don't care about the long-term damage to
society as long as they can get their way?
Most people are missing the point of this article. This is not entirely about
the homosexuality issue. This is about effectively enacting law (or reversing
existing law by non-enforcement) as a non-elected official. Congress
is meaningless if Holder starts choosing what to enforce. The proper remedy is
passing legislation against DOMA (the article clearly states this). This
shouldn't be Holder's decision. Nobody elected him to guide us on social reform
- only to help Obama enforce the laws.
This editorial leaves out that the Obama administration did in fact defend DOMA
in court and lost. What they are deciding to do now is not continue on appeals.
One of the things we empower the Administrative Branch with is to make decisions
on what decisions to appeal or not. There is no expectation that an
administration must continue to fight a losing battle if they don't believe they
This is not and should not be about your or even Obama's personal views about
DOMA or any other federal law.How many would quickly switch sides if
a republican president said he was no longer going to defend the
constitutionality of various gun control laws, or federal ADA laws, or federal
OSHA laws, or federal anti-discrimination laws?Congress passes a
law, the executive signs it (or it passes over a veto). It is now the
executive's SWORN duty to uphold and defend the laws. If the law is bad, Obama
should make his case to congress to repeal it just as he successfully did with
DADT.EVERY person here who supports Obama in refusing to defend this
law before the courts must then concede that every future president (democrat or
gop) has the same prerogative regarding ANY law s/he doesn't like. Think
carefully about that.If DOMA is bad law, Obama should make the case
to congress. If it is unconstitutional, citizens should make the case to the
courts, but do so against a full, honest, vigorous defense.Obama's
path here leads to rule of man rather than law.
Homosexuality is, always has been, and always will be, a form of sexual
perversion. The majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage, but
even if they did, that would not change the nature of the relationship. Love/lust does not justify changing the definition of marriage, nor does
it justify forcing those who oppose homosexual marriage to accept it as an
alternative to the divine origin and meaning of marriage.
Well, we have a new process to follow: "If you don't like a law and feel it
is unconstitutional" just don't obey the law. When you are taken to court
simply reference Obama and DOMA. I am not debating the issue of equality of
marriage or anything other than the fact that Obama has set a dangerous
precedent. I wonder where this guy is going. I am not sure we can keep afloat
with his type of change.
@JSBThe arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close
scrutiny. Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of
opponents make much sense when held up to the light of reason.So let's get
on with it. Let's get over the aversion to what is opposed for silly, irrational
reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just
and honorable society, "With liberty and justice for all." We really
don't know that there will be long-term damage to society. At the end of the
day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated
homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious
prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to
the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life. It
is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American
society than most Americans realize, not just for gays, but for society in
general. It's hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and
commonality of values and goals isn't going strengthen society.
Any person whose view of the administrations action in this case is based on
their opinion on whether or not the law is right or wrong misses the point of
the article AND doesn't understand the process by which our laws and the
constitution are supposed to operate. The PROCESS should be honored and fully
utilized, not jerry rigged to manipulate an outcome.1- Propose a
law2- Vote on it3- Enact a law4- Challenge it5-
Vigorously contest the pros and cons6- Receive a rulling7- Enforce
the law, or if you agree, seek to pass a different law.
"One has been where there is not a reasonable basis in law for an act's
constitutionality because of intervening and indistinguishable Supreme Court
rulings."Oh good, because DOMA is unconstitutional.Also, the Justice Department is still going to provide aid to others who take
up the defense of DOMA.
"EVERY person here who supports Obama in refusing to defend this law before
the courts must then concede that every future president (democrat or gop) has
the same prerogative regarding ANY law s/he doesn't like. Think carefully about
that."I support obama's decision. Why? Because the whole story
would tell you a key point. White House spokesman Jay Carney noted that the
administration would do what's required so other interested groups or members of
Congress are able to take the defense of DOMA. As long as there's still the
option of someone to fight things, it's not nearly as bad as it's being made out
@JSB. While I don't have a strong opinion on DOMA, I reject the notion that
allowing gay marriage to happen will result in all other forms of
"marriage" that you have enumerated to be allowed. All change,
whether positive or negative, can theoretically lead to further change.
Generally however we as humans have been smart enough to recognize when we have
reached both a theoretical and actual boundary. One could have easily argued
that allowing women to vote would eventually lead to allowing children, monkeys,
dolphins and dogs to eventually vote. But this seems unlikely to happen. One
could argue that allowing citizens to own firearms would eventually lead to
citizens being allowed to own military use tanks, ICBMs and eventually nuclear
warheads. But this also seems a stretch. My point is, whether you agree or
disagree with DOMA, stating that one will lead to another is a weak form of
argument and best and illogical at worst.
This will come back to haunt the president in 2012 with lost support.
It may be regrettable for supporters of DOMA, but it is not an unprecedented
action. Not at all.And a previous commenter is right, is this a
state level issue or not? If so, then states rights proponents should be
pleased. You can't have it both ways.
There is no state that allows marriages between gays is there? Civil Unions are
allowed, the difference is only the name.Don't understand why this
isn't good enough. Also don't understand how calling the union between gays
Marriage would hurt anyones hetrosexual marriage, i.e. why the name Defence of
Marriage Act?If anyone can explain please do so.
Obama "Reignites?" Really, Deseret News? Because the
issue was so settled until now?I'm sure your readers would welcome a
discussion of the constitutionality of DOMA, should you ever decide to actually
report on the issue.Again this "newspaper" feeds the
inflammatory response rather than advancing the discussion. There are, after
all, legitimate questions here. The commenters on this site have done a better
job elucidating the relevant issues than your editors and writers have.
WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! There was never any point in defending something as
clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act."
DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of
DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are
unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social
Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, such couples become
"UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the
"Full Faith & Credit" clause.The first comment above,
from "Bubble," claims that marriage is a states rights issue. This is
not true. The overwhelming majority of legal benefits come from the FEDERAL
government. If marriage is to be a states rights issue, then you can kiss Social
Security benefits for your surviving spouse goodbye.
"This will come back to haunt the president in 2012 with lost
support."Only among Tea Partiers and people who would have
never voted for him anyway. I don't think President Obama is losing much sleep
over not winning Utah.
KJB1-I'm sure barack gets plenty of sleep and rest. That's just
about sums up his presidency. Golf, vacation to hawaii, vacation to india,
vacation to europe, vacation to new york, vacation to hawaii, smoke, smoke, quit
smoking, smoke again, smoke, golf, spend $5 Trillion that isn't his to spend,
print money, golf, smoke, eat ribs, eat hamburger, tell everyone else to get
healthy, print more money, golf.....Not exactly a hard working
These decisions are not unprecedented, as this "opinion" says in its
first paragraph, so that's an outright mistatement of fact or a misprint.Second, keep opinions where they belong, in your opinion section, not on
the front-page sections of your news. The fact that any paper feels the need to
provide and opinion, I feel, is not providing the news, but making the news.
Let's stick with reporting the news! This goes for all news organizations!
@The Sensible MiddleYou probably just haven't kept up, but in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.,
marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed. In New
York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, same-sex marriages are recognized, but not
performed. (Note that Maryland is expected to pass same-sex marriage legislation
during the 2011 legislative session.)It's happening. But you can also see
the effects of such legislation on the rights of people to the free exercise of
their religion, per the 1st Amendment.
@Jared: So back then, liberty meant something different; but apparently we know
exactly what they meant by the word "created." Nice try!
I disagree with the Deseret News on one issue: this in NOT untested social
policy we are talking about. The Roman empire already
"tested-out" that policy with disastrous results! Their "social
policy" cancer transformed them into hedonistic animals who were easily
overthrown and destroyed by stronger political parties.The Executive
Branch of the federal government defends the law. It is only the Legislative
Branch which enacts law, not the Judicial or Executive branches. Treacherous BO
took an oath to defend our laws! This is just astounding.
not unprecedented..BushcoClintonOld BushReagan.plenty of times, It's immoral to give people equal rights.But it
was moral to wire tap AmericansI'll take equality over a police state any
The responsibility of the Executive Branch is to uphold the law of the land.
They can suggest laws to congress but ultimately, they're not to create laws.
That responsibility resides with Congress. It was designed that way to protect
us (the People) from dictatorial leaders who make and enforce their own laws.
This Obama regime has decided it doesn't like the elected officials in Congress
so are seeking every way possible to go around them. If Obama doesn't like
DOMA...he should have it repealed. But it is his duty to enforce. As for DOMA...someone stated above that it is a states rights issue. I'm okay
with that. But what DOMA does is protect states that DON'T want same sex
The sewer in Washington continues to soil our nation with politicians that lack
conviction,honesty,and values. If marraige is a states' Rights issue, which it
is, then Obama should stay 'true' to his convictions by allowing the states to
decide about Health Care. Alas, this is a a no-brainer for those who have any
convictions. Marraige is between a man and a women. Any comment otherwise only
shows your lack of conviction about right and wrong. Silence may be an
indication of cowardice, but hard to prove. Speaking up removes all doubt!
Obama has indeed spoken. He blew another chance to strengthen the citizens he
leads; instead he chose to validate something that will only lead to further
erosion and destruction of the family. This alone would cause me cast my vote
for someone else. I want leaders that know the difference between right and
wrong and are willing to stand up for it.
To Happy Valley Heretic,It is immoral to take away other peoples
freedoms in the name of equal rights.If gays are able to change the
definition of marriage, then the next assault is on freedom of religion. They'll
force their way into every church and have the government dictate to the church
what they can preach.I would take not calling gay union as a
marriage over a police state taking away religious liberty anyday.That is where this is heading.Remember legalizing alcohol was
going to increase peoples freedom. However their were consequences. We as a
society are paying for it. Maybe you haven't listened to your neighbors wife
being beaten by her drunk husband. I have. It's not pretty rushing over to try
and help and have knife pulled on you.Why aren't gays satisfied with
having a union? Because it doesn't go far enough to take away other peoples
rights and force their beliefs down other peoples throats.
The Constitution also makes it clear that you MAY NOT SINGLE OUT A GROUP OF
PEOPLE FOR discrimination (punishment).The decision to not defend an
Unconstitutional Law IS the Right decision.
The Sensible Middle | 6:27 a.m. Feb. 24, 2011 Bountiful, UT There is
no state that allows marriages between gays is there? Civil Unions are allowed,
the difference is only the name.Don't understand why this isn't good
enough. Also don't understand how calling the union between gays Marriage would
hurt anyones hetrosexual marriage, i.e. why the name Defence of Marriage Act?If anyone can explain please do so. ==========================6 States ALREADY allow same-sex
marriages.Civil Unions do NOT carry the same legal benefits.
Calling ssm "civil unions" segregates these MARRIAGES out as inferior
to heterosexual Marriages. Thereby leading to more discrimination against same
@ PolishBear: Marriage is a state's rights issue - states have always had the
right to determine who can get married and who can perform that marriage and the
Federal Government has honored that by providing benefits to those that the
individual states have determined to be legally married under the requirements
of the state where the marriage took place. For the Federal Government to say
they are not going to honor certain types of legal marriages infringes upon the
rights of the states to determine what a legal marriage is.@JSB:
There are valid societal reasons to prohibit the other situations you posit will
follow from same-sex marriage. Do you have a valid societal reason to prohibit
same-sex marriage? If not, your comparisons are invalid.@ KayBob:
Please provide evidence of one violation of Freedom of Religion based on
same-sex marriage.@ EPJ: The Roman Empire never had same-sex
marriage. They had straight marriage for children and families and those who
were inclined had same-sex relationships on the side. They lasted this way for
hundreds of years. Shortly after they changed religions, however, their society
was destroyed - perhaps that was the cause?
Many people seem to think that civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are
equal to marriage.This is not so - particularly under the 3rd part
of DOMA which prevents Federal recognition of anything other than opposite-sex
marriage.In order for civil unions and domestic partnerships to be
equal, those joined under those titles would have to have equal access to
Federal benefits - which means the third part of DOMA has to be done away with
and all Federal laws must be changed to recognize civil unions and domestic
partnerships as equal to marriage - this may be as simple as changing the
definition of spouse (but for some reason, I think a lot of people would object
to that as well...).
'@ PolishBear: Marriage is a state's rights issue' - 'Bubble | 8:56 a.m. Feb.
24, 2011 Then why is straight marriage recognized federally, or
across all 50 states? '@JSB: There are valid societal reasons to
prohibit the other situations you posit will follow from same-sex marriage.' -
Same And what are they? This is a blanket statement with no evidence
to support it. aka the 'boogyman' will get you if we allow gay marriage. Use some facts to win an argument. '@ KayBob: Please
provide evidence of one violation of Freedom of Religion based on same-sex
marriage.' - Same Easy. Temple marriage. Isn't it a
good thing then that advocates only want federal recognition for gay
marriage? '@ EPJ: The Roman Empire never had same-sex marriage.' -
Same Because you were there. What are you citing for thsi
comparison? Nothing. Also, America is NOT the Roman
Empire. America has made changes to marriage. Polygamy,
Utah 1890 Interacial marriage, 1967 Gay marriage, MA 2004
Amendment 3, Utah 2004 Just four examples. So your 'hundreds of
years?' Try seven. The DSNews is on the wrong side of
Our government's mandate to legislate the will of the people... and our system
of judges to protect and enforce these rules of law... has changed a lot over
time, and in this case not for the better.
I wonder if those who are so opposed to Obama's actions would also have been
opposed to Lincoln's decision to oppose slavery before the Constitution allowed
him to do so. As for those who paint a false distinction between
animus and so called moral opposition, I can introduce you to several sexist men
who use the bible to justify their sexism. And the KKK regularly quotes the
bible to justify racism. Bible bashing doesn't make intolerance moral.
Election year politicking created DOMA and Utah's Amendment Three, but its
Homophobia and thinly veiled bigotry that keeps them alive.To those
posters who flippantly say the LGBT community should simply take a legislative
route to end discrimination, just look at the anti-gay bills that were floated
at the Utah State Legislature this year. What chance of a fair hearing would
they ever even have? About as much chance as a Utah Snowflake in,
well you know where.
@ Pagan: You know, love, perhaps you should go back and reread my comments as
well as the comments I am commenting on - it would clear up some of your
confusion. And FYI - it is bad form to attack someone who is
defending your position.
Whether one agrees with DOMA or not is beside the point. Arbitrarily deciding
which laws to enforce and which to dismiss sets an extremely dangerous
precedent. Would same people cheering Obama's decision with DOMA defend the
legality of a President unilaterally dismissing Roe v. Wade? President Obama undermines the office he swore to uphold. He is showing
contempt for the rule of law, the constitution and for the people who
democratically elected the people who enacted the law. Ironically, it is NOT a
legal question that can justify his decision to allow people to break the law,
it is in fact a moral argument he makes. Regardless of the reason,
motivation, or language for any law, it is still the law. Unless something
changes, there is a system for changing laws with which one does not agree. It
worked in cases like slavery and segregation.
DADT and DOMA establish religious superstitions into our government by denying
equal protection based on religious bigotry against a select group of citizens.
It is wrong and immoral to deny equal protection in this way, and President
Obama was right to finally step up to the plate and refuse to defend the
indefensible. He swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He is
honoring that oath.
I agree with the Deseret News editorial board. Selective enforcement of laws by
the executive branch is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. Obama now shares
this disregard for the will of the people with Arnold Swcharzenegger and Jerry
The creativity that this administration uses to enact illegal legislation or gut
laws they do not like is astounding. For all of you that are
supporting Pres. Obama on this issue I suppose you will support the next
president that uses the same tactics to implement their agenda. Even though it
invalidates laws you support.This is defiantly the wrong way to go
about disavowing a law. Don't let this precedent stand. Everyone should be up in
arms about this tactic. All the gay rights activist need to look down the road
and see how this may be used against them in the future. When you fight dirty,
you can expect those that oppose you to fight dirty also.
Part 1:I am disappointed with this article, but every media and
person has a right to their views. However, no one has the right to promulgate
lies and slander.I just read thru all these comments. Sadly, I am
not shocked at the hate and bigotry, masked as religious conviction, in many.
Homophobia reigns among DesNews readers.I've lived here a little
more than 10 years. I'd been told that Utah was a welcoming place, and truly
cared about it's residents. Yet, year after year, I've seen that
"care" disintegrate, led by our Legislature and followed by its
people.The President decided "enough was enough" when it
came to supporting a law that is distinctly unconstitutional. Someone compared
it to Row v Wade. This Constitutional law has been challenged and held up. All you "constitutional scholars" should be thrilled by this
decision! You voted in people like Lee, who demanded that "if it's not
constitutional, get it out". Isn't that the very reason you've opposed
HRC? That it is unconstitutional?Congress has passed bills that
make Constitutional amendments impossible to act on. Illegal acts are cheered
by your same group. Continued
@phargo"Arbitrarily deciding which laws to enforce and which to
dismiss sets an extremely dangerous precedent."No.@Oregonman"Selective enforcement of laws by the executive branch is
wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. "No.The law
is still in place and enforced and I've seen so many comments from people who
don't seem to be understanding this.
Part 2You don't care what the law says. You only care about finding
another ridiculous reason to bash the President. If your allegations about his
citizenship and religion aren't enough, let's nail him with either breaking, or
not breaking, Constitutional laws. Face it. You will only be
satisfied if he is assassinated.DOMA and DADT were horrible laws,
and passed by a Democratic president, who felt he had no choice. This President
is doing everything possible to give all Americans equal status, with
opportunities accessible for every American. Your fears that this could lead to
incest, or telling churches what they can teach is ridiculous. Most of the
arguments here simply show that you think rights are only for white, male
landowners.What is wrong is when churches or other organizations
that receive any kind of government funding exclude anyone. Congress has all
but destroyed Planned Parenthood, which ash always been available to anyone.Which way do you want it, folks? Because a lot of us are going to stop
listening when you keep complaining about everything.You want your
cake, and you want to eat it. The result? A whole lot of uncomfortable
I think it is foolish, unnecessary, unproductive, wrong and even
unconstitutional for religious people to go to war over the meaning of a word.
There is nothing in the word marriage to limit the freedom of adult
Americans of any sort. Nor is there any thing in the word marriage that enables
or permits the harm to any other American. If there have been
privileges, rights and freedoms given out by our society based upon a word, they
can be taken back without messing with the word just as easily.
This is like letting a sitting president veto an act after it has already ben
signed into law. I think that this should be (mild) grounds for impeachment.
It is regrettable when the administration decides it won't support or defend
it's own laws... for political purposes.This is a relatively new
tactic. Administrations in the past would put partisan agendas aside when it
came to the Attorney General defend the current law until it was no longer the
current law.That's what SHOULD have been done in this case.When the US Attorney General refuses to defend current law... that's using his
position for subversion and sabotage of the law/Congress... or a subtle way of
back-door legislating (which is not their job).Even if he doesn't
personally support the law... he should officially defend it UNTIL the Supreme
Court steps in and changes it. It's not his job to overturn it.When
he uses his office to fight AGAINST Congress, or the laws passed by Congress...
he is not doing his job. The job of the US Dept of Justice is...
"To vigorously defended the constitutionality of federal statutes when
challenged in court".The Supreme Court overruling Congress is a
different story... that's their job... as outlined in the Constitution.Attorney General and Supreme Court have different jobs.
@Wear2ManyHatzYou are delusional. The point of the opinion piece was
that Obama is wrong in the actions he is taking to get ride of a law that is
already on the books. It has nothing to do with the law itself.You
seem to suggest that the actions are good because they take down an
unconstitutional law. If the law is unconstitutional the case should be taken to
court and argued in court. The route that Mr. Obama has chosen is obviously
wrong and it wouldn't matter which law he was choosing not to defend. This is
the wrong way to go about it.Everything you chose to put into your
comment is filled with hate. Please stop the hate, we don't need it in the
Obama and Eric Holder are absolute buffoons.Sorry, there's simply no
nice way to say it.
'This is like letting a sitting president veto an act after it has already ben
signed into law. I think that this should be (mild) grounds for impeachment.' -
Walt Nicholes | 1:34 p.m. Feb. 24, 2011 But falsefying information
to justify two wars is not? Obama dosen't want to spend tax money on
marriage 'defense' and he should be impeached, but Bush lies about Iraq and you
say nothing. Nice 'morality' there. President Obama is a
servant of the people, not it's slave. Other courts have ruled DOMA
unconstitutional, should a law, in dispute, be defended? I would say
'no.' Personal attacks on Obama aside ('Obama and Eric Holder are
absolute buffoons) what are the VALID reasons Obama should defend this law when
it is in dispute in the judicial branch? None. Bush
created the TSA and Patriot Act, and those same people say nothing about
infringing in personal lives. If you want to stop hate, then stop
denying over 1,000 legal protections to tax paying Americans...
because you don't like their orientation... based on something you
believe.... and don't KNOW. If you don't like gay
marriage. don't have 1.
@PolishBear7:17 says "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! There was never any point in
defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense
of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and
Straight couples. "If I understand you feel there should be no
laws which treat individuals differently. Those who wear clothes are treated
differently than those who don't regardless of real or percived consequences. 16
year olds are treated different than those younger (they can drive.) Disabled
have been granted special parking priviliges than others. There are nany
others!I think the impact of this article is the people I elect (and
pay)to make laws have made them. The person who is elected and paid to enforce
the laws can't decide not to enforce it, for that job there is the Court. The
Supreme Court has not decided that this law is unconstitutional and the
executive branch shouldn't enforce it. Therefore Mr. Holder etc. is not doing
what he is paid to do regardless of what you or I feel are the merits. Congress
has the opportunity to repeal it if they feel that properly represents the
people who elected them.
wear2manyhatz | 12:16 p.m. Feb. 24, 2011 Holladay, UT Why is
it, when someone has an opinion different from yours, they are hateful? Do you
call your comments reasoned discourse? And who said anything about wanting an
assassination? Why would you even raise such a scenario? I am a
registered Democrat, and proud of what my party represents. However, I also
recognize that some issues are larger than party. The issue in this instance is
not DOMA (which I am against), but an unauthorized exercise of authority. A crucial function of the executive branch is to ensure that laws are
carried out and enforced--not to rule on their constitutionality. That purview
rests with the Supreme Court, whose primary function is to hear cases that
challenge legislation or require interpretation of that legislationAgain--Congress may pass laws, and the president has the power to veto them.
But, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law, not the
Executive Branch. And THAT is the larger issue here. And
please--stop the hate and assassination talk.
RE: Proteos"It's the right precedent because its the duty of
the Executive Branch, as a co-equal branch, to check the constitutionality of
the actions of the other branches. Each branch is subordinate to the
Constitution and not to the other branches. They are sworn to preserve, protect,
defend, support, etc the Constitution and not the unconstitutional acts or
decisions of the other branches."DOMA was enacted following the
legislative process. It is law. Deciding not to enforce it is a MORAL opinion,
not a legal one. By not enforcing it, he undermines the legislative and judicial
process. This is not reflecting a "co-equal" mindset as you state."Yes. If a President refuses to defend Roe v. Wade I would support
his right to do so, even if he is an idiot for doing so, but that isn't the same
thing."A President would have no right to do so under the
constitution. Where would you draw the line? "He is preserving,
protecting and defending the U.S. Constitution and doing his duty. He was
elected to check your representatives unconstitutional votes in the
Legislature."This statement is inaccurate on many so levels.
wear2manyhatz | 12:18 p.m.You need to take deep breath and take it
down a notch or two. Your assassination comment is exactly the type of
overly-hyped attack intended to offend people and cause contention... the kind
of comment that could easily lead to violence... the kind of comment we have
been trying to eliminate from the discourse lately. Didn't you get the memo
@ L: You are right, we have many laws in this country that treat differently
situated individuals differently - such as laws prohibiting nudity, or requiring
you to be of a certain age to drive or to drink. But for everyone of those
laws, there is a valid governmental reason to treat those differently situated
people differently. For instance, brain development is behind laws setting
driving and drinking ages.DOMA treats similarly situated people
differently - and so far, no one has been able to provide a reason why the
Government should do that. If a person is legally married in Massachusetts, the
gender of their spouse should have no effect on filing their taxes as a married
couple.There is a difference between treating differently situated
people differently and treating similarly situated people differently.
@ BubbleWhat are the valid social reasons for preventing marriage between
two brothers or two sisters or a brother and a sister, or a father and a
daughter and or polyamorous families, etc? The point is, once we open the door
to liberalizing the definition of marriage, the other relationships will get
legal status for the same reasons that gays want that status. Two (or more)
people loving and caring for each other does not a marriage make. Marriage
between a man and a woman is the nucleus of the family and its purpose is to
raise healthy, well-adjusted children.
@ JoggleYou didnt respond to my concerns. You only implied that I have
homophobia. But I do not have an irrational terror of homosexuals. For the
good of our children, I am concerned about the long term social consequences of
liberalizing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. As a
former public school teacher and principal, I made the same observations and
conclusions as many other people in education: Children are much better off in
a traditional home with a father and a stay-at-home mother. Other situations
(working mother, divorced single mom, out of wedlock unmarried mother, etc.)
tend to be harmful to the healthy development of the child. Homosexual marriage
will inevitably lead to other strange relationships including polyamory that I
mentioned in my prior response. How will this affect our children, our schools,
our neighborhoods, etc? Do you want a polyamorous family living next door to
you? Or even in your own neighborhood? We must strengthen the home and family,
not undermine it. Why cant homosexuals and see the potential social dangers in
opening the Pandoras box of gay marriage. Maybe, they just don't care.
SBHomophobia happens in general. I agree that children are somewhat
better in a traditional home with a father and a mother....stay home or not!
Many different home situations can be harmful to a child whether heterosexual or
homosexual. Murderers, convicted felons, even known child molesters are all
allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second
thought by critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this
allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the
above categories of people from raising children? All traditional heterosexual
two-parent situations are NOT ideal and alternatively many homosexual parents
are! What counts is stability, love, support, understanding, and
communication.Homosexual marriage inevitably leading to other
strange relationships is a untrue assumption not based on_fact. Sexual/romantic
relationships (polyamory) that are not sexually exclusive already happens in
private between consenting adults and I really don't care what other people do
in private. I will never know my neighbors sexual business. We can only hope
society as a whole raises children responsibly no matter what the gender. We
cannot control the private lives of others.
@delasalle"...I reject the notion that allowing gay marriage to
happen will result in all other forms of 'marriage' that you have enumerated to
be allowed."It depends on how large, adamant, and persistent
the group is who insists on other marriage arrangements (other than man/women)
as an equal right. Same sex marriage may eventually come to be and the other
marriages listed by JSB may not. But that does not mean those who prefer other
types of marriages would not be discriminated against. Discrimination against
homosexual marriage is absolutely no different than discrimination against
marrying your sister, aunt, mother, or a frog.It takes a liberal to
argue for one type of aberrant marriage while at the same exact time arguing
against another type of aberrant marriage. That is, in fact, a liberal's stock
in trade. Another example: Liberals are all for abortion insisting they can do
what they will with their own bodies... trying with all their inconsistent might
to ignore the fact that the fetus is not their body. Go figure.
@The Sensible Middle"Don't understand why this (civil unions)
isn't good enough"Because homosexuals, as a whole, think they
have been ignored long enough and want to stick it to the married folk. They
are envious of the special relationship between a man and woman who are married
and want to try to capture that special relationship for themselves. What they
don't know is, it won't work... in this life or the next."Also
don't understand how calling the union between gays Marriage would hurt anyone's
heterosexual marriage..."It's not hurting any specific
marriage. It is hurting the institution of marriage with the long standing
tradition of a union between a man and a woman. Soon we will have a plethora of
aberrant marriages once homosexual marriages become legal."...i.e. why the name Defense of Marriage Act?"The idea
was to try to preserve the traditional of family and marriage.-----------@PolishBear"Also, such couples become
"UN-married" if they move across state lines..."They
are not actually married because the state who married them violated federal
law, per the Constitutional Supremacy Clause.
We are going to follow the constitution - unless it allows someone to contradict
my religious beliefs........
'It (gay marriage) is hurting the institution of marriage with the long
standing tradition of a union between a man and a woman.' - Miss Piggie | 1:45
a.m. False. Utah fully supported marriage between one
man and one woman and one woman and one woman... well, you get the
idea... until 1890. Polygamys marriage was NOT two
people. It was one man, and MANY women. Now we are going to try to
fall back on the 'tradition' of marriage between two people... when
Utah had marriage between many? That is false. All this talk about
respecting 'the law', and yet 1) MA enacted it's own state laws, didn't it? And now, people from outside this state, want to deny its allowance of
gay marriage. Also, before Prop 8 gay marriage was very MUCH legal.
18,000 married gay couples support this. And yet no one 'respected
the law' when Prop 8 was funeded, correct? This was again, disrepsect for
existing laws, and influnce from outside local goverment on a local issue. You can't talk about both sides of your mouth and expect people to
listen. Or rather, fail to point out the contradictions.
150 years ago the LDS church might well have agreed that the DOM act was
unconstitutional. If the Deseret News editorial is reflecting the Church's
position on this question (as I suspect it does), my! how things have changed.
We just have to keep stating the obvious here. Gay marriage isn't a
slipery slope issue because minors and animals can't enter into legal contracts
such as marriage.Nobody has ever forced a religious leader to
perform any marriage.These are false and dishonest arguments. Stop.
As much as you want to believe the constitution is a religious
document, it isn't.
@Screwdriver:"We are going to follow the constitution - unless it
allows someone to contradict my religious beliefs........"Why
are your religious beliefs so special? We live in a diverse country and we need
to accept that diversity.I suppose you and I might be on the same
side of this debate -- by some wild coincidence. You are only hurting your
position by bring in irrelevant arguments. The worst argument for a cause is
not a good argument against it but a bad argument for it. Go chew on that
DOMA will end up at the Supreme Court. DOMA also tried to guarantee state's
their rights by saying a state opposed to same-gender marriage would now have to
recognize marriage from another state. And yet so many in support of this
decision talk about how this is a win for state's rights? Really? By taking
away the right to determine what is recognized in your own state?This is wrong. Even if you disagree with DOMA work through the proper
channels to get it repealed and replaced, don't just ignore and refuse to uphold
law. We see how well that kind of logic has worked in the immigration debate...
'Why are your religious beliefs so special?' - Tekakaromatagi | 11:36 a.m. The difference, is that the gay community is not TRYING to force any
religious beliefs on anyone. Only ask for equal treatment and the same legal
protections enjoyed by straight married couples. 'By taking
away the right to determine what is recognized in your own state?' - Idaho guy |
11:43 a.m. This might be true...IF states had the choice to
recognize marriage from other states. Since straight marriage is recognized on a
FEDERAL level (all 50 states) to add a restriction on certian KINDS of marriages
sets a unconstitutional limitation. i.e. Jim and Mary's marriage
should ALSO then, NOT be recognized in another state. Not just Ben and
Steve's. A state has every right to deny marriage, if the marriage
ONLY had state income tax discounts. But, again, marriage stopped
being a local or religious ceremony.. the SECOND the marriage, any
marriage, got federal recognition. You want to stop marriage
recognition by state? Ok. Start with your own. Because that is the only marriage you should ever have any control over.
Pagan | 11:58 a.m.Who is forcing their Religious Beliefs upon
you?What specific religious belief has been forced upon you... and
It's funny reading Liberals stating this is a state's rights issue.Yep, abortion was a state's rights issue.Prop 8 was a state's rights
issue.Healthcare was a state's rights issue.Gun rights was a state's
rights issue.You are correct this is a state's rights issue.
However, since 31 states have rejected the perversion of homosexuality as
marriage, homosexuals take it to the federal courts to try to get the state's to
comply with their wishes.DOMA simply states that states don't have
to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be performed in another state.
So if it's a state's rights issue then all the lawsuits in federal
court will cease and all homosexuals will abide by the decision of the state's
and the laws the state's enact. Or move to one of the 5 states that accepts the
perversion of homosexuality as marriage. Your choice! You are still
for choice, right?
uncle Charles: "DOMA simply states that states don't have to recognize the
homosexual marriages that might be performed in another state."That is a federal law. Please state how that law can be constitutional when
the constitution states: "Full Faith and Credit sahll be given in each
State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Prodeedings of every other
State."It does not state that a state can pick and choose which
proceeding it deems legal, does it? If you are married in one state, you should
be married in all states. Drivers license in one state, legal to drive in all
states. Divorced in one state, divorced in all states. Please tell
me how you reconcile this law with the "supreme law of the land," our
Great article Desnews. DOMA is the law of the land and should be supported as
much. If you disagree there is a constitutional way to change it.
@Screwdriver:"Gay marriage isn't a slippery slope issue because
minors and animals can't enter into legal contracts such as marriage."Who needs a contract? Besides, the rules for legal contracts affecting
marriage of minors can be changed... and should be changed if you are truly in
favor of fairness and equity across all forms of marriage."We
just have to keep stating the obvious here."Obviously. And the
obvious is that allowing any aberration of marriage is a slippery slope
regardless if others think so or not.-----------------@Pagan:"Polygamist marriage was NOT two people. It was one
man, and MANY women."I take your point, Pagan. We are yet in
the early stages of more exotic marriage arrangements such as several men
marrying each other. Or, perhaps a plethora of people of both sexes tying a
collective knot.Call your dog in and give him/her a hug.
@Lane: You forget to post the rest of that clause. here it is:"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."Congress determined through the law the effect of the clause in
establishing DOMA. In doing so, it stated that states do not have to recognize
homosexual marriages from other states. Congress was completely within its
authority to prescribe the manner in which those things shall be proved and the
effect thereof.I agree with DOMA and it was also clearly ahead of
the homosexual movement in trying to run to the courts to have states recognize
their perversion. It was cutting off the activist judges who create law. Roe v
Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism taking the rights of states away
from them and declaring what they want on a nation that wasn't looking for
it.Why shouldn't states be allowed to eliminate abortion if they
desire?If you move to another state your driver's license will need
to be updated to that state and you might need to take another test.
@Lane continued:Is your law license from NY allowed in UT or do you
have to take the UT bar?Does a hair stylist license from UT work in
AZ? What are the driving license ages in each state?What
are the drinking laws in each state?Are the speed limits the same in
each state?Should we have the Feds come in and take rule over all
those individual state requirements?States are free to enact laws
that the residents desire and if a law from one state is in contradiction from a
law in another state so be it.It's an easy concept to understand for
those who wish to dig a little deeper than the top surface. Hopefully you are
one of those who will do that but I don't hold my breath since your history
Uncle Charles: "It's an easy concept to understand for those who wish to
dig a little deeper than the top surface. Hopefully you are one of those who
will do that but I don't hold my breath since your history indicates otherwise.
"Really? You have never heard an apology from me here? I am
surprised that you said that.I do agree that the congress can
"prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof." Does it say they can void acts of the
court from one state to another? Can a state make a couple marry again in their
state if they move into that state? Acts, Records and judicial
proceedings does NOT include speed limits, drinking age, and all laws enacted by
that state, does it. I think you went a little off base here. Court acttions are to be given full faith and credit in other states.Are you telling me that an adoption by a gay couple in California is invalid
here in Utah because Utah does not let gay couples adopt?Really?
Each state can work out what it will and will not accept?
@Lane: no, I have never seen you apologize for anything. sorry.Can
you take your law license from NY and practice in UT without taking the UT bar?
If the answer is no, then yes, one state is voiding the act of another state.There are many licenses that aren't accepted across state lines.I didn't go off the reservation at all. I'm pointing out that states do
have different laws for different things that are not accepted in another state.
The point is that the rest of the clause does allow for Congress to enact DOMA
which protects states from being forced through the courts to recognize
something that they have chosen not to.If Congress passes a law that
says one state does not have to recognize an adoption by a homosexual couple
signed in another state then yes, it can be done.What's the purpose
of having states and their laws if the Feds are just going to override
everything that state enacts?Kind of like NCLB -- complete overreach
by the Feds into a local issue. It was preemptive yet sad that we
need it. Homosexuality isn't marriage.
Lane Myer | 3:21 p.m. Feb. 25, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT Can a state
make a couple marry again in their state if they move into that state? I suppose they can, if that is really what they want to do. After all, they
have decided my driver's license is only valid for a period of time--basically,
on a transient basis. If I decide to live in another state, I have to get a new
license, or give up the privilege. If I had a CCW, it may or may not be valid in
another state, depending on how that state feels about CCW's. So, there are a
number of limitations on the Full Faith and Credit Act
@Chris B:"So, there are a number of limitations on the Full
Faith and Credit Act."Interesting point. And valid point, as
well.That's why DOMA was needed. DOMA, with the aid of the
Supremacy Clause, supersedes all state laws on the issue. If a state 'marries'
two females the marriage is null and void... even in the state where performed.
Being a "law and order" kind of guy, I can appreciate the position
that the law is the law and that the executive branch, state or federal, must
defend the law.Someone wrote, "that the Obama administration
did in fact defend DOMA in court and lost. What they are deciding to do now is
not continue on appeals...There is no expectation that an administration must
continue to fight a losing battle if they don't believe they will win."This makes complete sense and also applies to CA's Prop.8 which was
thoroughly trounced in court. Prop.8's lawyers gave a feeble defense since
there is no solid defense legally possible. It's more than reasonable to not
expect government to spend tax dollars defending laws that have been shown
legally specious.I wonder if the DN would defend DOMA had it been
written 120 years ago aimed at plural marriage or written 50 years ago regarding
mixed race marriages. Both were held to be morally suspect by the majority. I
see no objective difference.
Governments legally bind heterosexual couples for good reason. These
relationships are crucial for our survival. Those who would destroy the social
meaning of marriage would also destroy humanity. When government caves to the
demands of powerful special interest groups, who, with increasing control, push
an agenda that might destroy many generations, it is always cause for concern.
There seems to be little concern for daily lives and teh future of
our children among many in power.
To those crying that gay marriage is a tested social policy, I disagree.
Homosexual behaviour is tested, and is destructive. Legitimate studies on places
allowing gay marriage and homosexuality in general are still in their infancy,
but so far they show that gays are still far more promiscuous than others (no
decrease with marriage), still continue with higher rates of violence, suicide,
drug addiction, divorce, etc. And, gays still continue to encourage the break up
of families and abandonment of spouses (if someone feels attracted to the same
sex adultery is a condoned right, and the gay community, in general, argues that
the spouse, if mature, will just deal with it and say "good bye, I love
you".)Check narth, also "Creating Gay Children."
JSB - Children are much better off in a traditional home with a father and a
stay-at-home mother. LDS - Agreed, but will outlawing SSM keep gays
from raising kids? Obviously not. Is it better for kids to have the legal
protections offered them via their parents' marriage or not? If the former,
then denying marriage to same-sex couples HARMS CHILDREN. Period.If
marriage is about having kids, then let's only give marriage to couples who will
bring children into the world. No new marriages for women over 45, for the
sterile or infertile, etc...Also, for those couples who don't produce kids
within..say..3 years of being married, their marriage licenses are revoked. If
they can't produce kids, why do they need or deserve marriage any more than
same-sex couples who can't either?I'd really like to know.
Pagan: "..the gay community is not TRYING to force any religious beliefs on
anyone. Only ask for equal treatment and the same legal protections enjoyed by
straight married couples."LDS: Yes, it's the religious who are
forcing religious beliefs on society. Will someone...ANYONE...tell me how we
LDS are obedient to scripture when 1 Cor.10:29 condemns using religious opinions
to limit the rights of others. Prior to Prop.8, gays had the right to marry in
CA and we LDS let our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights
and liberties of others (D&C 134:4).Uncle Charles: Prop 8 was a
state's rights issue.LDS: So were laws in the South outlawing mixed-race
marriages. No different. Sorry, but "states' rights" can't supersede
the constitutional protections of Equal Protection & Due Process.Uncle Charles: Is your law license from NY allowed in UT or do you have to
take the UT bar?LDS: Law and other professional licenses are required
because the public relies on the professional expertise of the holders.
Marriage licenses are different. They only denote STATUS.DOMA &
Prop.8 are contrary to scripture. Period.
If the definition of marriage changes. This begs the questions of arrange
marriages, and the muslim practice of multiple wives. I'm sure that there are
many other marriage practices that are currently against US law. Would all of
these other marriage practices also be legal?